Cited by 26Environmental Impact and SustainabilityExtraction and Separation ProcessesSustainability and Ecological Systems Analysis

The Eco-Costs of Material Scarcity, a Resource Indicator for LCA, Derived from a Statistical Analysis on Excessive Price Peaks

Open access
Vogtländer, Joost, Peck, David, Kurowicka, Dorota·2019·Sustainability

Abstract

The availability of resources is crucial for the socio-economic stability of our society. For more than two decades, there was a debate on how to structure this issue within the context of life-Cycle assessment (LCA). The classical approach with LCA is to describe “scarcity” for future generations (100–1000 years) in terms of absolute depletion. The problem, however, is that the long-term availability is simply not known (within a factor of 100–1000). Outside the LCA community, the short-term supply risks (10–30 years) were predicted, resulting in the list of critical raw materials (CRM) of the European Union (EU), and the British risk list. The methodology used, however, cannot easily be transposed and applied into LCA calculations. This paper presents a new approach to the issue of short-term material supply shortages, based on subsequent sudden price jumps, which can lead to socio-economic instability. The basic approach is that each resource is characterized by its own specific supply chain with its specific price volatility. The eco-costs of material scarcity are derived from the so-called value at risk (VAR), a well-known statistical risk indicator in the financial world. This paper provides a list of indicators for 42 metals. An advantage of the system is that it is directly related to business risks, and is relatively easy to understand. A disadvantage is that “statistics of the past” might not be replicated in the future (e.g., when changing from structural oversupply to overdemand, or vice versa, which appeared an issue for two companion metals over the last 30 years). Further research is recommended to improve the statistics.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/su11082446

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Standard conversion factors from the Eco-Cost V3.0 database were directly applicable for most EF 3.1 impact categories, but depletion indicators for fossil resources and minerals and metals required custom factor derivation owing to the lack of universally accepted unit costs.

    “While standard conversion factors from the Eco-Cost V3.0 database (Vogtländer et al. 2019) were directly applicable for most EF 3.1 impact categories, depletion indicators for fossil resources and for minerals and metals required custom factor derivation owing to the lack of universally accepted unit costs.”

    From Integrating Life Cycle Assessment, Monetised Externalities and Value Alignment for Strategic Reconfiguration of Circular Business Models: The Case of Smartphones (2026) · cites this paper as Vogtländer et al. 2019

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Schulz, K.J.; DeYoung, J.H., Jr.; Bradley, D.C.; Seal, R.R., II. Critical Mineral Resources of the United States-An Introduction; United States Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2017. [CrossRef] · DOI
  2. Schmidt, M. Scarcity and Environmental Impact of Mineral Resources-An Old and Never-Ending Discussion. Resources 2019, 8, 2. [CrossRef] · DOI
  3. Guinée, J.; Heijungs, R. A proposal for the definition of resource equivalency factors for use in product life-cycle assessment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1995, 14, 917-925. [CrossRef] · DOI
  4. Van Oers, L.; Guinee, J. The Abiotic Depletion Potential: Background, Updates, and Future. Resources 2016, 5, 16. [CrossRef] · DOI
  5. Schneider, L.; Berger, M.; Finkbeiner, M. Abiotic resource depletion in LCA-Background and update of the anthropogenic stock extended abiotic depletion potential (AADP) model. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015, 20, 709-721. [CrossRef] · DOI
  6. Wilkinson, B.H.; Kesler, S.E. Strüngman forum reports. In Linkages of Sustainability; Graedel, T.E., van der Voet, E., Eds.; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2010; p. 122.
  7. Speirs, J.; McGlade, C.; Slade, R. Uncertainty in the availability of natural resources: Fossil fuels, critical metals and biomass. Energy Policy 2015, 87, 654-664. [CrossRef] · DOI
  8. Mudd, G.M.; Yellishetty, M.; Reck, B.K.; Graedel, T.E. Quantifying the Recoverable Resources of Companion Metals: A Preliminary Study of Australian Mineral Resources. Resources 2014, 3, 657-671. [CrossRef] · DOI
  9. Henckens, M.L.C.M. Managing Raw Materials Scarcity: Safeguarding the Availability of Geologically Scarce Mineral Resources for Future Generations. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2016.
  10. Sprecher, B.; Reemeyer, L.; Alonso, E.; Kuipers, K.; Graedel, T.E. How "black swan" disruptions impact minor metals. Resources Policy 2017, 54, 88-96. [CrossRef] · DOI
  11. Singer, D.A. Future copper resources. Ore Geol. Rev. 2017, 86, 271-279. [CrossRef] · DOI
  12. Drielsma, J.A.; Russell-Vaccari, A.J.; Drnek, T.; Tom Brady, T.; Weihed, P.; Mistry, M.; Perez Simbor, L. Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment-Defining the path forward. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21, 85-105. [CrossRef] · DOI
  13. Chapman, F.P.; Roberts, F. Metal Resources and Energy; Butterworth Scientific: Oxford, UK, 1983.
  14. Dewulf, J.; Van Langenhove, H.; Muys, B.; Bruers, S.; Bakshi, B.R.; Grubb, G.F.; Paulus, D.M.; Sciubba, E. Exergy: Its potential and limitations in environmental science and technology. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 2221-2232. [CrossRef] · DOI
  15. Liao, W.; Heijungs, R.; Huppes, G. Thermodynamic resource indicators in LCA: A case study on the Titania produced in Panzhihua city, southwest China. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2012, 17, 951-961. [CrossRef] · DOI
  16. Vieira, M.D.M.; Ponsioen, T.C.; Goedkoop, M.J.; Huijbregts, M.A.J. Surplus Cost Potential as a Life Cycle Impact Indicator for Metal Extraction. Resources 2016, 5, 2. [CrossRef] · DOI
  17. Rötzer, N.; Schmidt, M. Decreasing Metal Ore Grades-Is the Fear of Resource Depletion Justified? Resources 2018, 7, 88. [CrossRef] · DOI
  18. Vogtländer, J.G.; Brezet, H.C.; Hendriks, C.F. The virtual Eco-costs '99: A single LCA-based indicator for sustainability and the Eco-costs-Value ratio (EVR) model for economic allocation: A new LCA-based calculation model to determine the sustainability of products and services. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2001, 6, 157-166. [CrossRef] · DOI
  19. Hotelling, H. The economics of Exhaustible Resources. J. Political Econ. 1931, 39, 137-175. [CrossRef] · DOI
  20. Frischknecht, R.; Büsser Knöpfel, S. Ecological scarcity 2013-New features and its application in industry and administration-54th LCA forum, Ittigen/Berne, Switzerland, December 5, 2013. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 19, 1361-1366. [CrossRef] · DOI
  21. Steen, B. Calculation of Monetary Values of Environmental Impacts from Emissions and Resource Use. J. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 9. [CrossRef] · DOI
  22. Laurent, A.; Olsen, S.I.; Hauschild, M.Z. Normalization in EDIP97 and EDIP2003: Updated European inventory for 2004 and guidance towards a consistent use in practice. Supplementary Material. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2011, 16, 401-409. [CrossRef] · DOI
  23. Jolliet, O.; Margni, M.; Charles, R.; Humbert, S.; Payet, J.; Rebitzer, G.; Rosenbaum, R. IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2003, 8, 324. [CrossRef] · DOI
  24. Graedel, T.E.; Reck, B.K. Six Years of Criticality Assessments, What have we learned so far? Forum Yale Univ. 2015, 20. [CrossRef] · DOI
  25. Schneider, L.; Berger, M.; Schüler-Hainsch, E.; Knöfel, S.; Ruhland, K.; Mosig, J.; Bach, V.; Finkbeiner, M. The economic resource scarcity potential (ESP) for evaluating resource use based on life cycle assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 19, 601-610. [CrossRef] · DOI
  26. Dewulf, J.; Benini, L.; Mancini, L.; Sala, S.; Andrea Blengini, G.; Ardente, F.; Recchioni, M.; Maes, J.; Pant, R.; Pennington, D. Rethinking the Area of Protection "Natural Resources" in Life Cycle Assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 5310-5317. [CrossRef] · DOI
  27. Sonnemann, G.; Gemechu, E.D.; Adibi, N.; De Bruille, V.; Bulle, C. From a critical review to a conceptual framework for integrating the criticality of resources into Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 94, 20-34. [CrossRef] · DOI
  28. Achzet, B.; Helbig, C. How to evaluate raw material supply risk-An overview. Resour. Policy 2013, 38, 435-447. [CrossRef] · DOI
  29. Mancini, L.; Benini, L.; Sala, S. Characterization of raw materials based on supply risk indicators for Europe. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2018, 23, 726-738. [CrossRef] · DOI
  30. Vogtlander, J. The model of the Eco-Costs/Value Ratio. Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 2001.
  31. Peck, D.; Kandachar, P.; Tempelman, E. Critical materials from a product design perspective. Mater. Des. 2015, 65, 147-159. [CrossRef] · DOI
  32. Peck, D. Prometheus Missing: Critical Materials and Product Design; Delft University of Technology: Delft, The Netherlands, 2016; ISBN 9-789065-63997. [CrossRef] · DOI
  33. Tapia Cortez, C.A.; Saydam, S.; Coulton, J.; Sammut, C. Alternative techniques for forecasting mineral commodity prices. Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 2018, 28, 309-322. [CrossRef] · DOI
  34. Taleb, N.N. The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable; Penguin: London, UK, 2007; ISBN 978-0-14103459-1.
  35. Van der Velden, N.M.; Vogtlander, J.G. Monetisation of external socio-economic costs of industrial production: A social-LCA-based case of clothing production. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 153, 320-330. [CrossRef] · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vogtländer, J., Peck, D., & Kurowicka, D.
Affiliations
  • Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Department Product Innovation Management, Delft University of Technology, 2628 CE Delft, The Netherlands
  • Delft University of Technology (NL)
Venue
Sustainability
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2019-04-25
Volume
11
Issue
8
Pages
2446
ISSN
2071-1050 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2941111346
Cited by
26
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
EIT RawMaterials Lifelong Learning KAVA Education programme (17226)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Extraction and Separation Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Sustainability and Ecological Systems Analysis
Keywords
material shortages, eco-costs, resource availability, critical raw materials, price volatility, value at risk, supply risk, metals, supply chain risk

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review